I was trying to make sure we didn’t get back to talking about nothing.
Cool then we aren't going into classic science babel which I feared.
I know the Higgs is always on, which is why I wondered how that fitted in with your saying the fields would not be “turned on”.
Yeah it's getting really tricky with you now because you understand it well enough to catch me out when I simplify too much. I was being lazy with the description and yeah it's wrong at heart. You got me with my loose and fast classical description of energy in the other thread as well.
You are getting to the point you are so concise, I think we will need to switch frameworks to either QM or SR with more controlled descriptors. I don't think you can go much further in classical descriptions without these sorts of problems. You basically have everything except the mathematics sorted now, so you will be able to work with the change of descriptions.
Any statement I now make with classical physics you will now punch a hole in using the advanced facts you now understand. Essentially you have got to the point you must realize the classical description is totally inconsistent.
With you I probably need refinement of the terms Energy, Matter, Measurement and if you push much further reality.
I guess we could just do these as they become a problem so I guess the first up is energy. Have you reached the point you are happy to change energy to an operator (or currency) rather than something "real"? So energy like a US dollar only has meaning and value to the person using,measuring,counting and interacting with it. You could also go down the path of a promissory note between things and the universe which is a bit more GR like (some feel it has classical physics comfort) and it doesn't really matter the frameworks all converge when we get further on.
